"You have ten seconds to make your decision..."

[Mastikator]

Is this rule too stringent?
During combat each player has 10 seconds to decide what they do, if they don't decide then it's "defensive action" (whatever that may mean).

Is 10 seconds too little or too much? What are your thoughts on disallowing players from bogging down combat?

[Vitruviansquid]

Ten's a small number. But for some groups, a time limit is necessary.

But I expect that, for all groups, the players will let you know if it's a bad rule much more vocally and accurately than this internet forum could.

[draken50]

Is this rule too stringent?
During combat each player has 10 seconds to decide what they do, if they don't decide then it's "defensive action" (whatever that may mean).

Is 10 seconds too little or too much? What are your thoughts on disallowing players from bogging down combat?

I would say that's pretty low all told. Especially considering that the first person in the initiative order would have been the character who was able to act in a coherent manner the fastest, not the player. I've used a small timer that lasts a minute, and that alone added enough time pressure that even my most over-thinking players were able to determine a course of action and go with it. I do think some measurable, preferably visible time-limit does help, but yeah... 10 seconds is rather low, it's not like the players themselves are in the midst of a life and death fight, they're just trying to imagine it.

[Jay R]

It depends on the situation.

If the player actually was the character, seeing what the character sees, and with all the training the character has, six seconds is too much - the round is already over.

But it takes more time for an untrained person looking at miniatures and having to ask which one just attacked and which one is about to attack, for instance. And it's harder to absorb that verbal description than it would be for the character to simply see it. So it takes longer.

Also, anytime I'm bringing in a person new to this system, they need extra time. So does somebody stretching his limits by playing a character type he's not familiar with. Also kids often need more time.

By contrast, somebody who isn't paying attention to the game has lost any sympathy for the situation.

My general rule for a gamer experienced in this system and playing a character type he's comfortable with is to allow some quick explanation time, and then ask the player what his character does. After what seems like enough time (my guess is about twenty seconds), I will sometimes say, "OK, Mike, your character looks around, and will take his action at the end of the round. April, you're next. What does your paladin do?"

But I'm postponing the action, not deciding it. If I decided it, I would feel like I couldn't have the NPCs take advantage of it. If I merely postpone it, they are free to attack.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ten seconds is a little on the short side.

Realistically, if it's ten seconds per turn per person, each player has approximately a bit under a minute. For some, I dare say many, that may not be long enough to process the changeing situation and make good decisions about what action to take.

I'd suggest 15-20 seconds per turn. If you can't figure out what to do after a minute and a half ~ish you may be overthinking. 30 seconds pushes you close to two and a half minutes and that, imo, would be generous but still keep things moving at a good clip.

[JusticeZero]

People are acting like the actual action is instant. What you are saying is actually 10 seconds of hemming and hawing, then about 20-30 seconds of actually doing the action. 10 seconds may or may not be enough to ask a tactical question, but it's very generous the rest of the time.

[hamlet]

t my table, I've always applied a countdown rule. If, when your turn comes up, you sit there without giving me something, an action, an idea, anything more than "Uhm . . .", then I start to count back from 5. If, by the time I hit 0 you still haven't responded, your character stands there stupefied.

Now, it doesn't have to be a whole action reconciled in 5 seconds, just something like "I know what I'm doing just let me look up a rule . . ." or "Can I . . .?" Just an indication of some real engagement with the game.

It really does work wonders, and yes, on occasion somebody gets angry about being "pushed," but it does a lot to move things along and, from time to time, add a real sense of urgency to combat.

[Segev]

If the party is supposed to be coordinated, I would let the players ask you questions to establish the status of the combat at the start of each round, then give them a minute to discuss actions and then another minute to write down on index cards or something what their characters are doing. Then run through it. If an action has become invalid, give that player 10s to state a new action or hand you a new index card (he can have been writing since the action became invalid).

If the party is not supposed to be coordinated, don't give them the minute to discuss tactics.

[LibraryOgre]

Ten's a little fast, as others have said, but I could see applying it to the terminally indecisive and chronically inattentive.

[Vitruviansquid]

I wonder if a less bothersome way to achieve the same results is to ban everyone else from talking during a player's turn. In my experience, turns slow down because other players try to intervene, complicating the situation.

[Berenger]

It is important to note that such a rule does absolutely nothing for the "realism" of combat encounters (this is a surprisingly common misconception). Having said that, the appropriate time frame can differ dramatically. Factors include, among other things, the complexity of the gaming system, the players familiarity with said gaming system and the complexity of different class features. You should really just ask your group which time frame they prefer prior to the session. You won't find a magic rule that works equally well for every group.

[Galen]

Is this rule too stringent?
During combat each player has 10 seconds to decide what they do, if they don't decide then it's "defensive action" (whatever that may mean).

Is 10 seconds too little or too much? What are your thoughts on disallowing players from bogging down combat?

Depending which character and what level. If it's a Barbarian whose choices boil down to "attack the Orc" or "attack the Orc chieftain" and "power attack" or "no power attack", that's reasonable. If we're talking high level caster with many spells prepared, I don't think it's reasonable.

Of course enforcing the rule on Barbarians and not enforcing it on Wizards is in itself not reasonable because it creates hierarchy inside the party, and just emphasizes the fact that character classes aren't equal. My advice, if there is even one character in the party for whom it's not reasonable to expect a quick decision, don't enforce quick decisions in general.

[Deaxsa]

Is this rule too stringent?
During combat each player has 10 seconds to decide what they do, if they don't decide then it's "defensive action" (whatever that may mean).

Is 10 seconds too little or too much? What are your thoughts on disallowing players from bogging down combat?

If i ever implement this rule (which i do, occasionally,) i make it clear: you have 10 seconds at the beginning of your turn to tell me what you're doing, or the turn is lost. after you tell me what you're doing, we can figure it out. In other words, all of the time that others spend on their turns can be used to decide your actions, and the consequences of the actions don't have a time limit. For me, it's more a way to force a player to make a decision, rather than drag the game on for some insignificant choice the player makes.

[JusticeZero]

If we're talking high level caster with many spells prepared, I don't think it's reasonable.

The high level caster has an entire round of people fighting to figure out what they're doing. I have no patience for people hemming and hawing and looking through notes when their turn comes up. It's a combat, it's fast and chaotic. I like being able to accomplish more than one fight in a night.

[Knaight]

It really depends on the game. For simpler games which don't use grids at all, 10 seconds is often ridiculously excessive. For extremely complicated games, 10 seconds might be too little.

[Mastikator]

People are acting like the actual action is instant. What you are saying is actually 10 seconds of hemming and hawing, then about 20-30 seconds of actually doing the action. 10 seconds may or may not be enough to ask a tactical question, but it's very generous the rest of the time.

Right, you have 10 seconds to make a decision, if that action then takes 5 minutes to calculate then so be it.

But it's not just to push the chronically indecisive to take action, but also to just stress the players a bit.

[Amphetryon]

Is this rule too stringent?
During combat each player has 10 seconds to decide what they do, if they don't decide then it's "defensive action" (whatever that may mean).

Is 10 seconds too little or too much? What are your thoughts on disallowing players from bogging down combat?

How many characters/sidekicks/companions/summons are commonly available per person in your game? I ask because a game where each person has only one character to control should generally expect faster completion of a turn from a player than a game where a player has herself, her sidekick, her pet, and the ally she summons to deal with each combat "round."

[Altair_the_Vexed]

Right, you have 10 seconds to make a decision, if that action then takes 5 minutes to calculate then so be it.

But it's not just to push the chronically indecisive to take action, but also to just stress the players a bit.

You're deliberately trying to stress people out?

Hell, why not give them a random amount of time? Why not shout at them while they're trying to think? Let off firecrackers? Change the game rules without telling them?

Stressing people out on purpose is a bad thing to do when you're trying to play a fun game.

[Aedilred]

I think what is a reasonable amount of time depends at least in part on how much information and in how much detail the GM is giving the players, too. Some have a very mechanical style and in order to get some idea of what's going on, which enemies look on the verge of death and which are looking unhurt despite having taken some punishment, which guys look dangerous, what sort of armour they're wearing, whether anything you're doing is likely to be effective against them, what the terrain is like, etc. you have to ask questions.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with that style in itself (although if you're being barraged with basic questions every round perhaps imparting some more information as standard wouldn't go amiss) but allowances then need to be made for the players to take longer over their turns because they don't have all they need to make an informed decision when their turn comes up.

That said, I'm generally in favour of imposing some kind of hurry-up on players, since otherwise they do (in general) have a tendency to overthink everything, make every action a group decision, or indeed stop paying attention and spend the time they're not actively doing anything getting distracted and needing things explained to them every round (the last can be mitigated by speeding the whole process up in general, of course).

[TheThan]

I thought it was
“You only have ten more seconds to live”
Oh wait, sorry I’m channeling Kenshiro here.

Seriously though i think this has a lot to do with the nature of the response. Does the player have to respond with an IC action? or does he just have to respond?

If it's to get the players to move through combat quickly then I think ten seconds is a way too short a time. I'd go for 30 seconds for that. as sometimes players minds go blank and they just don't know what to do with their characters. sometimes coming up with an IC reaction to something can take time, and 10 seconds is sometimes too short, sometimes 30 seconds is too short for that matter.

if he just has to respond; ten seconds is plenty of time to say something like "hold on let me think!", or "I'm trying to pick a spell to cast", or "I'm trying to decide which path to take" etc.

[icefractal]

If it's time to decide, not time to resolve, then I think 10s is ok. On the short end of ok - I might go with 15-20s before that to ease people into it - but it's possible. If you can't decide something in 10s, just Delay, then you have other peoples' turns to think about it.

I'd give the first person to go in a given fight longer, maybe 30s. Unlike the rest, they don't have other turns to be thinking during, and it seems backward that the quickest reacting character is the most likely to be forced to delay.

[Kaun]

I used the 20 seconds to state action rule, for a long time. I generally don't need to anymore, my players seem to pay better attention now.

[Mr Beer]

Depends but it's not inherently unreasonable to force players to move it along. You need to make allowances for noobs and possibly the easily distressed and/or characters overburdened with options. Some of that stuff can be solved outside the combat itself, by helping the players develop useful default actions.

I have sometimes used such a rule; also I would much rather play in a game where the GM forces action instead of allowing people to hem, haw, shuffle papers and flick through books for minutes at a time.

[Silus]

Honestly as a player, being given a time limit to decide actions, especially in a system where strategy, teamwork and planning are really important, serves to do little more than stress me out.

[oxybe]

I thought it was
“You only have ten more seconds to live”
Oh wait, sorry I’m channeling Kenshiro here.

There is never anything wrong with adding little bit of Omae wa mou shindeiru in someone's daily life.

10 seconds is too fast IMO for some characters. Things change from round to round and as a druid player, if the barbarian decides to jump into the middle of the enemy group immediately before my round comes, my initial plan to cast entangle might have just been bungled up.

I would say if you're having problems with turns taking too long, bring it up with the players and try to figure out what exactly is taking them so long. If it's unfamiliarity with the system or even character sheet, then pressuring them won't help.

If they're distracted, then that means either they don't care or are simply not engaged in your game and pressuring them won't help either of those cases.

Solve the problem at hand before throwing/applying solutions at the wall and seeing if something sticks.

If someone were to pull it on me simply to apply pressure or make things seem "chaotic" or "realistic", I would walk. Realism is the last thing I look for in a game of elf wizards, and chaotic is not what I would call a game where players act in the same, orderly round by round positions.

[Demonic Spoon]

There are too many variables for most limits, especially one as small as 10 seconds, to make sense.


Example: Bill the Wizard plans to cast some kind of disabling spell on enemy caster.

Bob the Barbarian acts immediately before Bill the Wizard. Bob runs up to enemy caster, critical hits, and gibs said enemy caster. It's Bill the Wizard's turn and he has 10 seconds to evaluate the battlefield and decide what spell to cast.



If a player is just sitting there saying "ummm, umm....", then maybe just ask them "What are you going to do?" to get them to pick something. If they're a newer player and don't know what to do, suggest an action. If a player just screws around between turns and that's why he takes forever in combat, talk to him after the game.

[Knaight]

You're deliberately trying to stress people out?

Hell, why not give them a random amount of time? Why not shout at them while they're trying to think? Let off firecrackers? Change the game rules without telling them?

Stressing people out on purpose is a bad thing to do when you're trying to play a fun game.

While stress might not be the best word for the phenomenon, this is a deliberate design choice in a lot of videogames, a handful of simultaneous playing board games, a number of board games with a timer, etc. The time restriction can make things more exciting, or even be the whole point.

[Telwar]

The high level caster has an entire round of people fighting to figure out what they're doing. I have no patience for people hemming and hawing and looking through notes when their turn comes up. It's a combat, it's fast and chaotic. I like being able to accomplish more than one fight in a night.

I remember in 3.5, when playing my goliath rage-priest, his actions were actually fairly simple. Run up and hit something. Duh.

OTOH, actually figuring out my attacks and damage for my turn took up the entirety of every other player and NPC turn, what with Smites and Rage and Power Attack, to the point I really had no idea what was happening on anyone else's turn (which is annoying, because I generally pay attention to other people's actions and use them to inform my own actions).

It only occurred to me later that would've been a wonderful time to learn how to use a slide rule.

[Tengu_temp]

Any kind of "you have a set amount of time to make your action, and after that time you lose it" rule would be a good incentive for me not to play with that DM, no matter what that time limit is. And when it's as stringent as 10 second? Yeah, I'm instantly out.

If people aren't too slow, you don't need such rules. If someone is being too slow, just tell them to hurry up. The most severe rule I'm willing to take is "if you can't think of an action in a certain amount of time, your action gets pushed for later in this round - let the DM know when you actually came up with one". But making the player lose the action for being too slow is just being an ass.

[Fortis]

I can't speak for everyone, but I know that this sort of time limit, especially one as short as ten seconds, would rapidly drain my enjoyment of a game. I have a slow, methodical mindset, and I like to weigh my options carefully before committing to an action. And I find time limits very distracting to my thought process, especially if someone is verbally counting down. My mind just goes 'OH GOD I GOTTA PICK SOMETHING WHAT DO I DO WHAT DO I DO WHAT DO I DO!?'. I wouldn't find such a time limit fun, nor would I really appreciate the tension and chaos from it. I play games like this to get away from stress.

Also, as for those saying that players have a whole round to decide what to do? Sometimes, but sometimes not. I do use that time to plan out my next action, but the battlefield is a dynamic situation. There's time when the bad guy I was planning to beat up got axed by the PC just before me, and I had to pick a new battle plan. Or an ally just got hit into the negative HP. Or a fire started and began spreading. Or a cave in just occurred blocking off my chosen route. Changing situations dictate changing tactics.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. If my GM implemented this, I'd try to argue against it. And if they were adamant, I'd wish them luck, and leave to find another game.